'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the "big five" and the risks for research integrity.

The exponential growth of MDPI and Frontiers over the last decade has been powered by their extensive use of special issues. The "special issue-ization" of journal publishing has been particularly associated with new publishers and seen as potentially "questionable." Through an extended case-study analysis of three journals owned by one of the "big five" commercial publishers, this paper explores the risks that this growing use of special issues presents to research integrity. All three case-study journals show sudden and marked changes in their publication patterns. An analysis of special issue editorials and retraction notes was used to determine the specifics of special issues and reasons for retractions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Findings suggest that these commercial publishers are also promoting special issues and that article retractions are often connected to guest editor manipulation. This underlies the threat that "special issue-ization" presents to research integrity. It highlights the risks posed by the guest editor model, and the importance of extending this analysis to long-existing commercial publishers. The paper emphasizes the need for an in-depth examination of the underlying structures and political economy of science, and a discussion of the rise of gaming and manipulation within higher education systems.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.

Background: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?' Aims: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Navigating the challenges of imposter participants in online qualitative research: lessons learned from a paediatric health services study.

BACKGROUND: The growth in online qualitative research and data collection provides several advantages for health service researchers and participants, including convenience and extended geographic reach. However, these online processes can also present unexpected challenges, including instances of participant fraud or scam behaviour. This study describes an incident of participant fraud identified during online focus group discussions and interviews for a PhD health services research project on paediatric neurodevelopmental care. METHODS: We aimed to recruit carers of Australian children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Potential participants were recruited via a publicly available social media advert on Facebook offering $50 AUD compensation. Those who expressed interest via email (n = 254) were sent a pre-interview Qualtrics survey to complete. We identified imposters at an early stage via inconsistencies in their self-reported geographical location and that captured by the survey as well as recognition of suspicious actions before, during and after focus group discussions and interviews. RESULTS: Interest in participation was unexpectedly high. We determined that all potential participants were likely imposters, posing as multiple individuals and using different IP addresses across Nigeria, Australia, and the United States. In doing so, we were able to characterise several "red flags" for identifying imposter participants, particularly those posing as multiple individuals. These comprise a combination of factors including large volumes and strange timings of email responses, unlikely demographic characteristics, short or vague interviews, a preference for nonvisual participation, fixation on monetary compensation, and inconsistencies in reported geographical location. Additionally, we propose several strategies to combat this issue such as providing proof of location or eligibility during recruitment and data collection, examining email and consent form patterns, and comparing demographic data with regional statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The emergent risk of imposter participants is an important consideration for those seeking to conduct health services research using qualitative approaches in online environments. Methodological design choices intended to improve equity and access for the target population may have an unintended consequence of improving access for fraudulent actors unless appropriate risk mitigation strategies are also employed. Lessons learned from this experience are likely to be valuable for novice health service researchers involved in online focus group discussions and interviews.

An Assessment of Clinical Research Self-Efficacy among Researchers at the Largest Healthcare Institute in Qatar: Recommendations and Future Actions.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research professionals must be equipped with adequate training in sound scientific methods and appropriate ethics. In this study, we aimed to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of researchers at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). We also evaluated the effects of training courses on researchers' self-efficacy. METHODS: Utilizing a cross-sectional design, we used the shortened Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI-12) through an online survey to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of 600 researchers at HMC, Doha, Qatar. After conducting descriptive analyses, unpaired t test and ANOVA were used to determine significant mean percentages between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated to measure the association among the interval variables. All tests were 2-sided, and significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: For all questions, except those related to "funding," most participants scored on the upper half of the scale (>5), reflecting higher self-efficacy for the topics covered in CRAI. Gender differences were significant across all factors, with males reporting higher levels of self-assessed efficacy and in clinical research. Other factors such as higher education degrees and previous (external) clinical research training were also associated with higher self-reported clinical research efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that researchers at HMC possess high clinical research self-efficacy overall, but lower self-efficacy in securing funding. Gender and education level positively influence self-efficacy across CRAI factors. Notably, clinical research training boosts self-efficacy, especially when obtained outside HMC. In conclusion, healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to engage in effective clinical research training courses, both within and outside of their healthcare institutions, to improve their clinical research efficacy and enhance clinical practice.

Data Availability Statements and Data Sharing in Urology: A False Promise?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is considered standard for authors of scientific papers to provide access to their raw data. The purpose of this study was to investigate data availability statements (DAS) and the actual availability of data in urology. METHODS: The DAS policies of the top ten urology journals were retrieved. Then 190 selected papers were classified according to their DAS status. Finally, we contacted the corresponding authors of papers that stated that data were available on request to enquire about this possibility. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: All journals either required or highly recommended a DAS. Among the selected articles, 52% (99/190) included a DAS stating data availability, most often on reasonable request to the corresponding author. A formal DAS was lacking in 29.5% (56/190) of the articles, with an additional 18.3% (35/190) citing various reasons for data unavailability. On contact, 23.4% (15/64) of corresponding authors indicated a willingness to share their data. Overall, data were unavailable in 73.7% (140/190) of cases. There was no difference between papers dealing with malignant and benign diseases. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a gap between the intention to share data and actual practice in major urological journals. As data sharing plays a critical role in safeguarding the reliability of published results and in the potential for reanalysis and merging of datasets, there is a clear need for improvement. Easier access to data repositories and stronger enforcement of existing journal policies are essential. PATIENT SUMMARY: To ensure the reliability of data and allow further analyses, major urology journals require authors to make their data available to other researchers when possible. However, in practice we found that data were only accessible for about a quarter of published scientific papers.

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: a cross-sectional analysis of references and citations.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are (1) to analyze the references cited by retracted papers originated from paper mills; (2) to analyze the citations received by retracted papers originated from paper mills; and (3) to analyze the potential relationships existing between paper mill papers and their references and their citations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a cross-sectional study. All original papers retracted in 2022 identified as having originated from paper mills and had been published at least 12 months before their retraction (hereinafter "source-retracted papers") were included. The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the source-retracted papers and Web of Science was used to identify the references contained within them and the citations received by them. We described the characteristics of the papers and journals. Additionally, 2 networks of source-retracted papers mutually interconnected via their citations and references were built: 1 with only retracted references and retracted citations and the other with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted). RESULTS: A total of 416 paper mill papers retracted in 2022 (sourced retracted papers) were identified, with a median of 1247 (interquartilic range, 907.8-1673.5) days between publication and retraction. Of all authors identified, 92.3% were affiliated with Chinese institutions. There were 14,411 references contained in the source-retracted papers and 8479 citations received by them; the median number of references and citations was 35 (29-40) and 16 (9-25), respectively. In total, 473 references and citations had also been retracted for being paper mill papers. Among the 416 sourced-retracted papers, 169 (41.9%) and 178 (42.8%) were referenced or were cited by at least another retracted paper, the majority of which also originated from paper mills. The first network analysis, which included source-retracted papers along with their retracted references and citations, found 3 clusters of 53, 48, and 44 retracted papers that were mutually interconnected. The second network analysis, with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted) identified a large cluster of 2530 interconnected papers. CONCLUSION: Retracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills, displaying inter-relationships. Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications.

Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.

BACKGROUND: Equal, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities. METHODS: This study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices About Research Integrity and Scientific Misconduct Among the Faculty and Medical Postgraduates Working in Medical Colleges in North Karnataka and Central India: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.

Introduction Research integrity is an active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Research or scientific misconduct stands like child abuse today. The survey of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded scientists calculated an absolute minimum of 2325 incidents of scientific misconduct per year. A report has also shown that Iran (6.60), India (5.68), Turkey (5.38), South Korea (3.59), and China (2.00) had higher ratios of publication misconduct to distrust data or interpretations than other countries. Hence, to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) of the research integrity/scientific misconduct among the faculty and postgraduates working in the medical colleges in North Karnataka (NK) and Central India (CI), this study has been carried out. Methods It is a web-based, cross-sectional study carried out with the use of Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, California). A pretested, unstructured questionnaire consisting of 25 questions was posted in the way of a link to the faculty and postgraduates working in various disciplines within the colleges of NK and CI either by using an e-mail or other social platforms like WhatsApp. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained in both regions before conducting the survey. Results A total of 146 participants responded to the e-questionnaire posted to them. Participants from CI displayed better awareness in several areas compared to NK. Citing articles and/ or materials that have not been read is the common questionable research practice (QRP) they have come across, as mentioned by participants in both groups. Discussion The study reveals a moderate level of knowledge and variable attitudes toward research integrity. The "publish or perish" culture is a major contributor to misconduct. Training and awareness programs are needed to enhance ethical research practices. Conclusion This study highlights the need for improved education and policy implementation to uphold research integrity in medical colleges, emphasizing the role of academic culture in shaping ethical research practices.

Screening p-hackers: Dissemination noise as bait.

We show that adding noise before publishing data effectively screens [Formula: see text]-hacked findings: spurious explanations produced by fitting many statistical models (data mining). Noise creates "baits" that affect two types of researchers differently. Uninformed [Formula: see text]-hackers, who are fully ignorant of the true mechanism and engage in data mining, often fall for baits. Informed researchers, who start with an ex ante hypothesis, are minimally affected. We show that as the number of observations grows large, dissemination noise asymptotically achieves optimal screening. In a tractable special case where the informed researchers' theory can identify the true causal mechanism with very few data, we characterize the optimal level of dissemination noise and highlight the relevant trade-offs. Dissemination noise is a tool that statistical agencies currently use to protect privacy. We argue this existing practice can be repurposed to screen [Formula: see text]-hackers and thus improve research credibility.

Critical Gaps in Medical Research Reporting by Online News Media.

BACKGROUND: The integrity of medical research reporting in online news publications is crucial for informed healthcare decisions and public health discourse. However, omissions, lack of transparency, and the rapid spread of misinformation on digital and social media platforms can lead to an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of research findings. This study aims to analyze the fidelity of online news in reporting medical research findings, focusing on conflicts of interest, study limitations, statistical data, and research conclusions. METHODS: Fifty randomized controlled trials published in major medical journals and their corresponding news reports were evaluated for the inclusion of conflicts of interest, study limitations, and inferential statistics in the news reports. The alignment of conclusions was evaluated. A binomial test with a Bonferroni correction was used to assess the inclusion rate of these variables against a 90% threshold. RESULTS: Conflicts of interest were reported in 10 (20%) of news reports, study limitations in 14 (28%), and inferential statistics in 19 (38%). These rates were significantly lower than the 90% threshold (p<0.001). Research conclusions aligned in 43 (86%) cases, which was not significantly different from 90% (p=0.230). Misaligned conclusions resulted from overstating claims. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exist in the reporting of critical contextual information in medical news articles. Adopting a structured reporting format could enhance the quality and transparency of medical research communication. Collaboration among journalists, news organizations, and medical researchers is crucial for establishing and promoting best practices, fostering informed public discourse, and better health outcomes.

Concerns about data integrity across 263 papers by one author.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive investigation of published work by authors suspected of academic misconduct can reveal further concerns. We aimed to test for data integrity concerns in papers published by an author with eight retracted articles. STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the integrity of all papers reporting on prospective clinical studies by this author. We assessed the feasibility of study methods, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. We plotted the author's clinical research activity over time. We conducted pairwise comparisons of text, tables, and figures to identify duplicate publications, and checked for consistency between conference abstracts, interim analyses, trial registrations, and final papers. Where indicated, we recalculated p-values from the reported summary statistics. RESULTS: We identified 263 papers claiming to have enrolled 74,667 participants between January 2009 and July 2022, 190 (72%) of which reported on studies that recruited from the Assiut Women's Health Hospital in Assiut, Egypt. The number of active studies per month was greatest between 2016 and 2019, with 88 ongoing studies in May 2017. We found evidence of data integrity concerns in 130 (49%) papers, 43 (33%) of which contained concerns sufficient to suggest that they could not be based on data reliably collected from human participants. CONCLUSION: Our investigation finds evidence of widespread integrity concerns in the collected work of one author. We recommend that the involved journals collaborate in a formal investigation.

Family without kinship - the pluralism of European regulatory research integrity systems and its implications.

This paper investigates the differences and similarities between European regulatory research integrity systems. The data collection process involved gathering information from public sources. A total of 27 European countries were included in the comprehensive dataset. Three determinants were examined: the legal structure of national research integrity regulation, the presence of national research integrity guidelines, and the provision of research integrity training by national research integrity offices. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify relevant differences in national research integrity systems and the work of national research integrity offices. The findings suggest that the functions and powers of research integrity offices in Europe vary significantly, and there is extensive variation in the legal status and functions of national research integrity systems. We identify the major implications arising from these differences and explore what the challenges for harmonization of the European research integrity systems are. Our findings highlight the need for promoting dialogue between actors on an international level.

Teaching epistemic integrity to promote reliable scientific communication.

In an age of mass communication, citizens need to learn how to detect and transmit reliable scientific information. This need is exacerbated by the transmission of news through social media, where any individual has the potential to reach thousands of other users. In this article, we argue that fighting the uncontrolled transmission of unreliable information requires improved training in broad epistemic integrity. This subcategory of research integrity is relevant to students in all disciplines, and is often overlooked in integrity courses, in contrast to topics such as fraud, plagiarism, collaboration and respect for study subjects. Teaching epistemic integrity involves training epistemic skills (such as metacognitive competences, capacity to use helpful heuristics, basic statistical and methodological principles) and values (such as love of truth, intellectual humility, epistemic responsibility). We argue that this topic should be addressed in secondary school, and later constitute a fundamental component of any university curriculum.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs. SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated. MAIN RESULTS: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains. CONCLUSIONS: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government's pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020-February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021-February 2023) for long-term preparedness. RESULTS: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week: the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). CONCLUSION: As a result of South Korea's commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

Statistical techniques to assess publication integrity in groups of randomized trials: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe statistical tools available for assessing publication integrity of groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review. RESULTS: Freely available statistical tools have been developed that compare the observed distributions of baseline variables with the expected distributions that would occur if successful randomization occurred. For continuous variables, the tools assess baseline means, baseline P values, and the occurrence of identical means and/or standard deviation. For categorical variables, they assess baseline P values, frequency counts for individual or all variables, numbers of trial participants randomized or withdrawing, and compare reported with independently calculated P values. The tools have been used to identify publication integrity concerns in RCTs from individual groups, and performed at an acceptable level in discriminating intentionally fabricated baseline summary data from genuine RCTs. The tools can be used when concerns have been raised about RCT(s) from an individual/group and when the whole body of their work is being examined, when conducting systematic reviews, and could be adapted to aid screening of RCTs at journal submission. CONCLUSION: Statistical tools are useful for the assessment of publication integrity of groups of RCTs.

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: research integrity definitions and challenges.

Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past 2 decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.